Max-Planck-Institut für demografische ForschungMax Planck Institute for Demographic ResearchKonrad-Zuse-Strasse 1 · D-18057 Rostock · GERMANYTel +49 (0) 3 81 20 81 - 0; Fax +49 (0) 3 81 20 81 - 202; http://www.demogr.mpg.de

This working paper has been approved for release by: Hill Kulu (kulu@demogr.mpg.de)Deputy Head of the Laboratory of Contemporary European Fertility and Family Dynamics.

© Copyright is held by the authors.

Working papers of the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research receive only limited review.Views or opinions expressed in working papers are attributable to the authors and do not necessarilyreflect those of the Institute.

Differences between male and femalefertility in Russia - an evaluation ofbasic pattern and data quality usingthe first wave of the Russian GGS

MPIDR WORKING PAPER WP 2007-015APRIL 2007

David Alich (alich@demogr.mpg.de)

Differences between male and female fertility in

Russia An evaluation of basic pattern and data quality using the first wave of the

Russian GGS

David Alich (2007)

alich@demogr.mpg.de

Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research

Konrad-Zuse-Straße 1

18057 Rostock

GERMANY

2

Abstract

While most demographic fertility studies focus on child birth behavior of females,

little is known about differences between males and females fertility behavior. The

lack of empirical research about men stems from problems such as linking fathers and

their biological offspring, biological differences in male reproductive behavior as

compared to women, missing data and concerns about the quality of existing data

sources. Using the data from the Russian Generation and Gender Survey (2004) of the

cohorts 1924 to 1970, this study provides insights into sex-specific fertility

differences, by comparing fertility age, timing and parity patterns of Russian men and

women. Aggregate measures as well as event history techniques are used to analyze

the hypotheses that men have a longer reproductive life span, that they start their

fertility career later than women and that males vary more in their number of

biological children born than do females. Furthermore, we evaluate how reliable

Russian male fertility reports are compared to women’s. The results show that in spite

of a typical age difference at the transition to parenthood of approximately two years,

males and females have much more common fertility patterns than is suggested by

previous studies. Moreover, it is shown that men’s fertility reports are not necessarily

biased. These findings suggest that comprehensive future research of Russian men's

fertility pattern is possible.

3

1. Introduction

Long-term fertility research in demography has mainly focused on fertility dynamics

and behavior of women. An important reason for this focus was the direct link

between women and their children. When family and parenthood were lifelong stable

institutions, the analyses of female fertility patterns alluded to an almost complete

picture of fertility dynamics. However, today’s family and parenthood are more

dynamic and multifarious. During the last decades, patterns like stepfamilies, social

parenthood, and patchwork families have gained more importance in modern

societies. Recent research has shown that the inclusion of men and/or fathers leads to

better understanding of fertility and family dynamics (Goldscheider and Kaufman

1996; Greene and Biddlecom 2000).

Demographic studies assume that male fertility behavior is different from its female

counterpart in many ways: Men presumably have a longer reproductive life span, men

tend to start their fertility career later than do women, the variety of the number of

biological children born to men is assumingly larger compared to that of women and

men tend to underreport their fertility outcomes. These aspects are rather neglected in

empirical demographic research and are often considered obstacles to incorporating

men in fertility and family demography. By using the case of Russia, I will investigate

the differences between male and female fertility patterns in terms of age, timing,

parity and childlessness. This analysis is driven by two goals: Firstly, to compare the

fertility age, timing and parity pattern of men and women and secondly, to check the

reliability of Russian male fertility reports compared to women’s. Thereby, it will be

shown that the sex specific differences of fertility outcomes, fertility pattern and

fertility reporting behavior, as assumed in demographic literature, contain only minor

empirical evidence.

Men’s and women’s fertility patterns will be examined using data from the Russian

Generation and Gender Survey (GGS) of 2004. Even if Russia is a very specific

example with various country-specific demographic developments, the collected data

offer an excellent possibility for sex-specific comparisons and can be used as a

starting point for future fertility research on Russia with data from the GGS. The

separate collection of male and female fertility histories allows a detailed analysis of

age patterns, parity distributions and birth transitions of men and women. Thereby,

4

female fertility patterns will be used as a benchmark, since they are assumed to be

unbiased.

In the following, the term Russia refers to the territory of the Russian Federation. The

term Russians (Russian men or women) is used for inhabitants of this area. If

Russians as an ethnic group are specified, the term “ethnic Russians” will be used.

The country-specific context of Russia since the 1990s was and is shaped by dramatic

changes in political, social and economic conditions. Their impact on fertility is not

discussed in this study, since the aim is merely descriptive.

2. Problems and concerns when incorporating men into demographic fertility

research

Since the interest among demographers and sociologists in men, their reproductive

life cycle and fertility behavior is growing, barriers to incorporate males in fertility

and family research are discussed. The discussion is based on the fact that it is more

difficult to establish a direct link between a biological child and his father, compared

to females and their offspring. This issue is often treated as a main obstacle to

conducting reliable analyses and data about male fertility. In the following, social

arguments and methodological issues of this debate are briefly discussed.

Social arguments: An important argument for relying on female fertility data only

was the fact that marriage and the family were lifelong stable institutions in the

industrialized world during a major part of the 20th century. In this “golden age of

marriage,” births out of wedlock, stepfamily pattern or single parenthood were minor

phenomena (van de Kaa 1987). If fertility almost exclusively happens in stable and

long-lasting marital unions, it is sufficient to collect fertility information from women

only. Some authors have even suggested that married women can report on their

husbands’ attitudes towards fertility and fertility-related activities (Bachrach et al.

1992; Goldscheider and Kaufman 1996; Sorensen 1998). Thus, demographic research

in general has regarded men as somehow uninvolved in fertility, other than being

economically important and impregnating women (Watkins 1993; Greene and

Biddlecom 2000).

During the last decades, fertility patterns have been changing in the majority of

modern societies. A rapid fall in overall fertility and rising ages at childbirth were

accompanied by the weakening of the link between marriage and childbearing.

5

Increased divorce rates and the spread of cohabitation, single-parenthood and

stepfamilies show that life-long stable marital unions have lost their dominance. By

excluding men from fertility analyses, their importance in fertility decisions (not only

within a stable partnership) is largely ignored. Therefore, given that men and women

no longer experience a similar fertility and family life cycle (Greene and Biddlecom

2000), it is necessary to analyze men’s fertility behavior and their outcomes in order

to get a complete picture of fertility and it’s determinants.

Methodological concerns: Numerous methodological problems are mentioned in

demographic literature when examining male fertility patterns. The five main issues

are: 1. A mother and her children are much easier to link. Their probability to forget

some or to be unaware of their own biological children is small compared to men

(Toulemon 2001). 2. The length of a female’s reproductive time span is well-defined,

while a male’s is vague (Shryock and Siegel 1976). The same applies to the age when

their fertile phase is finished. 3. A man is able to impregnate more than one woman at

factual the same time. Thus, checking the quality and reliability of male fertility data

is more complicated in comparison to a female’s. 4. Women are easier to interview

because they are more often at home (Goldscheider and Kaufman 1996).1 5. Men tend

to underreport the number of their biological children, either intentionally or due to a

lack of information (Duberstein Lindberg et al. 1998a).

Various studies have found serious problems when analyzing male fertility behavior

due to the previously stated problems (Bledsoe, Lerner, and Guyer 2000; Cherlin and

Griffith 1998; Coleman 2000; Goldscheider and Kaufman 1996; Rendall et al. 1999).

However, other studies conclude that it is possible to obtain correct fertility data from

men (Duberstein Lindberg et al. 1998b; Mott and Gryn 2001).

In the following, hypotheses concerning sex-specific fertility characteristics will be

described and the mentioned problems will be discussed in detail. This is followed by

a short description of the dataset, variables and methods used. The empirical analyses

will be presented subsequently. Firstly, I show descriptive aggregated fertility

measures for both sexes. The second part will contain event history analysis of the

transition to the first, second and third birth. All transitions will be modeled separately

for both sexes. Finally, the paper concludes with a discussion of the results and the

stated hypothesis.

1 Despite changes in labor force participation of mothers throughout the industrialized countries, this still has evidence.

6

3. Hypotheses: Men becoming fathers – women becoming mothers. What is

the difference?

Analyses of the sex-specific differences in fertility behavior are even rarer than

research on male fertility or fatherhood. I refer to the discussion of four sex-specific

differences:

1. The length of a fertile time span;

2. Age and timing pattern of fertility;

3. Completed fertility and parity distributions (childlessness vs. multiple

parenthood) and

4. Underreporting behavior.

1. The first issue of interest is the length of the male’s reproductive life span. Whereas

women usually enter puberty between the ages between 12 and 14 and finish their

fertile phase in the ages between 40 and 50, the time frame for men is less clearly

defined. They usually reach puberty two years later, but their procreative capacity is

not really limited. Even if there is evidence that male fertility is declining with age, it

can last a lifetime (Bledsoe, Lerner, and Guyer 2000; Coleman 2000).

In medical and biological studies, this issue is well-examined and discussed. In

demographic publications, however, it is more often assumed than proved empirically

(Bachrach and Sonenstein 1998; Driscoll et al. 1998; Hogan and Goldscheider 2000;

Greene and Biddlecom 2000; Shryock and Siegel 1976). Exceptions are the studies of

Brouard (1977), Ravanera and Rajulton (2003) and Paget and Timaeus (1994). The

authors agree that men have a significantly longer fertility life span than do women.

What kind of implications does this issue have for demographic research concerning

male fertility behavior? To estimate male completed fertility or men’s final number of

children, it would require data from men at older ages compared to women (Coleman

2000). Furthermore, if a man wants to reproduce after age 50, he needs a younger

woman (most likely under age 45) to fulfill his desire. Consequently, the longer

reproductive life span of males could lead to more dynamic marriage/union formation

and dissolution pattern and an elevated age differences in couples (Cherlin and

Griffith 1998).

My first hypothesis is that men may have a longer procreative phase compared to their

female counterparts (“fertile time span” hypothesis). Thus, older age groups (older

7

than age 45) have to be taken into account to estimate males with a completed number

of biological children, the final share of childless men and the males’ age at

childbearing.

2. Men start their family and fertility career two to three years later than women. The

gap applies to the males’ start into fatherhood. as well as to their marriage and

partnership formation (Coleman 2000; Hogan and Goldscheider 2000). It is assumed

that this pattern could partially be addressed to biological differences between both

sexes, which is similar to the previously discussed arguments, for example the later

start into puberty etc. (Coleman 2000). Furthermore, partner market theories stress

two main mechanisms. First, a relatively stable birth or marriage age generates a

standard age gap between men and women, due to age specific sex ratios among

people without a partner and/or childless individuals (Klein 1995). Secondly, a

constant age gap over different cultures and time implies a “historical perpetuation”.

Independent of the initial reasons (economic constraints, values, norms, traditions and

institutions) of the age difference, it is repeated through following generations

because of pre-defined demographic conditions and opportunity structures (Klein

1995). Nevertheless, the age gap changes if the demographic composition of a

population is altered (e.g. by wars, birth booms, birth drops).

The evaluation of this hypothesis appears trivial. Nevertheless, it has important

methodological and theoretical implications. Men and women of the same age are not

equally fertile (especially not during their teenage years). Males and females do not

have the same age-specific probability of finding a partner or becoming parents.

Changing fertility-relevant societal conditions (e.g. social policies etc.) would affect

men and women at different ages. Hence, when comparing cohort-specific fertility

measures, the common age difference should be taken into account. Males should be

related to two or three year younger females and vice versa.

My second hypothesis is that the sex-specific age difference between Russian men

and women at the birth of their first biological child is around two years. Men are

assumed to be two years older than their female counterparts (“age gap” hypothesis).

This pattern has already been shown for Russian marriage behavior. The age

difference is expected to have been relatively stable over time, with exceptions being

in the 1940s, 1950s and the birth cohorts of the 1920s, and 1930s, due to the Second

World War (Scherbov and Van Vianen 2001, 2004).

8

3. Men have a greater diversity in their number of biological children born compared

to women. In other words, some men have a relatively large progeny size, whereas

others have only few children or remain childless (Andersson 2000; Bledsoe, Lerner,

and Guyer 2000; Coleman 2000; Toulemon 2001). Previous studies argue that this is

valid, even if most modern societies have imposed a normative monogamy on

themselves, thus minimizing the variance in reproduction and progeny size

distribution which is observed in polygamous societies (Coleman 2000).

Why may such a polarization occur? Modern societies have imposed different kinds

of cultural and social norms on the mating system, mainly behavioral principles, laws

and legislation which forbid polygamous partnerships. Therefore, a polarization

pattern between childless men and fathers of many children should no longer be

strong in these societies. However, previous studies in demography and sociology

have found that men with a high education, income and social status have more

children (Bernhardt and Goldscheider 2001; Callister 1999), but only in one union or

within serial monogamy. In other words, men who are able to fulfill the role as a

“breadwinner” for a family are more attractive marriage partners and fathers (Kalmijn

and Luijkx 2005). Nevertheless, among certain ethnic or religious groups, special

marriage regulations (e.g. payment of bride money) could lead to a higher proportion

of childless and/or unmarried men, due to missing possibilities to accumulate enough

resources (e.g. money).

My third hypothesis therefore is that a polarization of progeny size among Russian

men should be observable. A larger number of men (compared to women) will stay

childless, whereas some males reproduce more often compared to their female

counterparts (“polarization” hypothesis).

4. Misreporting and underreporting of male fertility is probably the most important

topic when examining male fertility behavior. Most of the studies about male fertility

stress that men underreport their fertility, even if they are interviewed directly

(Goldscheider and Kaufman 1996; Mott and Gryn 2001; Rendall et al. 1999;

Toulemon 2001). The percentage of males underreporting compared to female fertility

reports ranges between 3 and 20 percent (Duberstein Lindberg et al. 1998a). The

reported numbers of biological children could be biased due to intentionally or

unintentionally misreporting. Whereas unintentionally misreporting is founded in the

fact that especially young fathers are sometimes not informed about their fatherhood

and some men tend to forget children in some cases, intentionally misreporting is

9

caused by pressure through social norms, the partner or legislation (Duberstein

Lindberg et al. 1998a).

Especially the factors which influence unintentionally misreporting behavior are

uncertain. According to previous studies, commonality of a child’s and father’s

residence over the life course, education of the father, marital status and family size

influence misreporting behavior in general (Cherlin and Griffith 1998; Duberstein

Lindberg et al. 1998a; Mott and Gryn 2001). The higher number of sexual partners

over men’s life courses adds to the complexness of this problem (Coleman 2000;

Bledsoe, Lerner, and Guyer 2000). Also the set-up of the questionnaires in surveys

influences the quality of the estimates. Duberstein et al. (1998) argue that the

reliability of male fertility reports could be improved by asking on a partner-specific

basis, on the basis of sexual behavior and by an explicit data collection related to non-

residential children. Unintentional misreporting especially should occur less often

with such a set-up. By asking the respondent separated from the partner and by

decoupling questions about payment of child support and questions about non-

residential children, one can reduce intentional misreports (e.g. due to fear of

punishment and social pressure) as well.

My fourth hypothesis is that only minor differences between female and male fertility

reports occur if the structure of the questionnaire (which will be discussed in the

following) accounts for these issues (“no underreporting” hypothesis). However, to

estimate the completeness of a male’s fertility, two key assumptions are necessary: 1.

The total number of births of men and women from the same population should be

equal, when averaged over a suitable time interval and over the same birth cohorts, if

the sex ratio is not completely unbalanced. 2. Women’s fertility reports are correct

and complete (Rendall et al. 1999).

4. Data and Methods

Data of the recently collected Russian Generation and Gender Survey (GGS) are used

in the empirical analyses. The interviews were conducted between June and August

2004 with a stratified sample technique. The data were collected on the basis of the 10

geographical regions of the Russian Federation, plus St. Petersburg, central Moscow

and the suburbs of Moscow, and on the basis of modified “Raions” (counties). In the

end, the whole dataset contained 11,205 valid cases for the empirical analyses in this

10

study. Men and women were asked separately. The majority of respondents were

females, turning out in 7,007 (62.5 percent) valid cases. The number of male valid

cases was 4,198 (37.5 percent) (Independent Institute for Social Policy 2004). Even if

the distribution of men and women is not balanced, their age distribution etc. is

representative for all of Russia. The respondents were drawn from the birth cohorts

1923 to 1988. Correspondingly, the age distribution varies between 16 and 82.

Unfortunately, the response rate in the most urbanized regions (Moscow and St.

Petersburg) of Russia was very low. In both cities, it did not exceed 15 percent. In all

other regions, 57.2 percent of the drawn sample responded to the questionnaire

(Independent Institute for Social Policy 2004). The multivariate models will be

controlled for this bias by including a regional variable. Furthermore, analytical

weights will be used in all analyses.

The collection of fertility and partnership histories was one of the most important

issues of the GGS program. Therefore, two kinds of fertility tables were conducted: 1)

children in the household and 2) children currently not in the household. All children

were distinguished in respect to their relation to the respondent (biological, fostered,

adopted etc.). The setup of the partnership table allows for crosschecking of common

biological children with every mentioned partner. Questions about child support and

allowances were asked in a separate part of the questionnaire. The setup of the

questionnaire fulfills most of the criteria for the collection of reliable male fertility

data (Duberstein et al. 1998).

In the first part of the empirical analyses, I examine my hypotheses by using fertility

aggregated statistics. Period and cohort measures are presented. Some of them are

taken from official statistics (e.g. Council of Europe). Since most of the official

statistics do not contain fertility information concerning males, self-estimated

aggregate statistics will be presented, too.

In the next step, hazard regression models are displayed to crosscheck age and parity-

specific fertility patterns. First, survival curves will be presented. In the last part, the

corresponding piece-wise constant baseline intensities, interacted with sex and

controlled for region of residence, are shown. The parity specific models can be

written as:

µ(t)i = aiW(t) * aiM(t) * ci

11

where µ(t)i is equivalent to the intensity of first (i = 1), second (i = 2) or third (i = 3)

birth, which is affected by time factor aiW(t) or aiM(t) (W = women; M = men; t =

duration in months since age 12 or previous birth; for occurrences and exposure table,

see Appendix: Table 5) which is interacted with sex of the respondent. Region of

residence (ci) is introduced as a time constant covariate.

5. Empirical Analyses

5.1. Sex differences in aggregated measures

In Figure 1, the Total Fertility Rate as provided by the official statistics (Demographic

Yearbook 2004) as well as an estimated female and male TFR, based on the data of

the Russian GGS, are presented. The measures were conducted by calculating the age-

specific number of births and number of respondents for five-year period intervals.

After a considerable decrease by 1967, the TFR shows a very stable pattern around

two children per woman for approximately 20 years, followed by a short increase in

the 1980s (1987: 2.23) and a tremendous drop at the beginning of the 1990s, which hit

its bottom in 1999 (1.17) . The estimated measures with GGS data closely follow

these trends up to the middle of the 1980s, but on a lower level. They further show

considerable differences between the sexes during this time. The differences increase

at the end of the 1980s. Whereas the estimated male TFR follows the general trend,

the female estimates are much higher. I argue that it could be due to an

overrepresentation of highly fertile young women in the sample. As a previous survey

study by Kreyenfeld (2002) for Germany showed, they are more often at home and

consequently easier to reach by the interviewers.

However, even if the trends in the presented measures are similar, using the TFR only

is an incomplete proof of sex differences and the reliability of the data, since it is very

sensible to timing effects and is not showing cohort specific patterns.

The cohort specific analyses will focus on the birth cohorts up to 1970.2 Figure 2

presents the Completed Fertility Rate (CFR) taken from the Demographic Yearbook

(2004) and from estimations of Scherbov and Van Vianen (Scherbov and Van Vianen

2001). Furthermore, the average number of biological children of Russian men and

2 It is assumed that the majority of respondents from these cohorts already had their final number of children by the date of the interview (see Figure 8 and Figure 9)

12

women was estimated by using the GGS (for detailed description of the distribution of

respondents by birth cohorts and parity, see Appendix: Table 2 and Table 3).

The corresponding graphs in Figure 2 display moving averages (2nd order). Since the

cohorts in the middle of the 1930s up to the beginning of the 1960s the estimated male

and female CFR followed each other on a similar level (1.7 to 1.9 children per

person), with exception of the individuals born around 1945. In the older cohorts

before 1935, men (e.g. 1939: 2.1 children) reported considerably more biological

children, compared to women (e.g. 1929: 1.8 children). I argue that this could be

explained by a retrospective selection bias due to WWII and the Civil War (Scherbov

and Van Vianen 2004). Many men from the cohorts of the 1920s and the beginning of

the 1930s died in the war. Women were not similarly affected. The war led to a highly

differential sex-specific mortality pattern and to imbalanced sex ratios on the partner

market, as previous studies on Russian marriage behavior had shown. The sex

difference around the cohorts of 1945 can be explained by another effect of WWII.

Large female birth cohorts around 1940 were confronted with fewer number of males

between 1943 and 1945.? Both situations lead to a very low proportion of men who

never married and to a higher proportion of unmarried women. Since parenthood

during this time was directly connected to marriage, only very few men stayed

childless. (Scherbov and Van Vianen 2001; Scherbov and Van Vianen 2004; Avdeev

and Monnier 1999).

Dating from the cohort of 1945, the fertility reports of the Russian GGS are a good

approximation of the official measures. They stabilized on a level around 1.8 children

up to the 1960 cohort and slightly decreased afterwards (1970: 1.6 children; censoring

may be part of the explanation). This applies more to women than to men. Men’s final

number of children is always a bit lower compared to their female counterparts. This

might indicate males underreporting.

Figure 3 shows the sex differences in detail. Given that men are on average two years

older than women when they become fathers for the first time, female birth cohort

groups are related to males two years older (e.g. females from cohorts: 1941 to 1945

to males from cohorts: 1939 to 1943). To account for random variation between

single-year birth cohorts, the respondents were grouped in five-year cohort intervals

(for distribution of respondents, see Appendix: Table 4). The sex difference is smaller

than in Figure 2 and less variation occurs in the graphs. However, the patterns are

similar.

13

0.5

0.7

0.9

1.1

1.3

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Calendar year

TF

R

TFR (official) Male TFR (GGS) Female TFR (GGS)

Figure 1: Total Fertility Rate – TFR - (1960 to 2004) Sources: COE – Demographic Yearbook (2004), Russian GGS (2004) – own estimations

0.5

0.7

0.9

1.1

1.3

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970Birth cohort

CF

R /

Ave

rage

nr.

bio

logi

cal c

hild

ren

CFR - Demogr. Yearbook CFR - Scherbow / Van VianenCFR - MEN (GGS) CFR - WOMEN (GGS)

Figure 2: Completed Fertility Rate (cohorts: 1920 to 1969) and average number of biological children (2nd order moving average over cohorts: 1925 to 1975) Sources: Demographic Yearbook (2004); Scherbov and Van Vianen (2001); Russian GGS (2004) – own estimations

1.95 2.00

1.80 1.741.83 1.86

1.761.63

1.511.81 1.80 1.75 1.78 1.83 1.88 1.891.77

1.507.0

10.2 2.9

-2.40.5

-1.4

-7.6 -8.30.8

0.5

0.8

1.0

1.3

1.5

1.8

2.0

2.3

2.5

WOMEN 1926-30 1931-35 1936-40 1941-45 1946-50 1951-55 1956-60 1961-65 1966-70

MEN 1924-28 1926-33 1934-38 1939-43 1944-48 1949-53 1954-58 1959-63 1964-68Birth cohort

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Sex

diff

eren

ce (

in p

erce

nt)*

MEN WOMEN Sex difference

Figure 3: Sex differences in average number of biological children Source: Russian GGS (2004) – own estimations;

NOTE: * positive values = men reporting more biological children than women negative values = women reporting more biological children than men

14

Whereas men in the oldest cohorts report more biological children than their female

counterparts, this pattern changes following the cohorts of the 1940s. I argue the

cohorts between 1924 and 1935 are biased by WWII. After excluding these cohort

groups (males: 1924 to 1933, females: 1926 to 1935) and averaging the sex

differences over the cohorts from 1936 to 1970 (females) and from 1934 to 1968

(males), the average difference is 2.3 percent. This means that men report 2.3 percent

fewer children than their female counterparts.

To sum up, according to the presented aggregate statistics, Russian men report fewer

biological children than do women. The sex differences in the number of biological

children are considerably smaller than studies from Toulemon (2001) or Rendall

(1999) would suggest.

Figure 4 displays the percentage of childless men and women by five-year birth

cohort groups and the sex differences for the birth cohorts up to 1970 (for women)

and 1968 (for men). Again, female cohorts are compared with male cohorts two years

older. Childlessness is generally uncommon among Russians and up until the birth

cohorts of 1970, it remained at a level around 10 percent. This applies to both men

and women, with only minor differences. The results presented in Figure 4 show that

sex-specific differences are most pronounced among respondents from the birth

cohorts after 1960. However, by averaging sex-specific childlessness over the female

birth cohorts between 1936 and 1970, correspondingly men of the cohorts from 1934

to 1968 (not biased by WWII), the overall difference is 2.6 percent. The stable level

of reported childlessness and the small sex differences support the assumption that the

Russian GGS provides estimates of good quality for male fertility compared to

previously discussed studies and used samples (Toulemon 2001; Rendall 1999).

Furthermore, parity-specific distributions of Russian men and women for different

birth cohorts are estimated (Figure 5 and Figure 6) to examine whether a higher

proportion of men are fathering a large number of biological children. In spite of

differences in the two youngest cohort groups (again, biased by the WWII), the

distribution over the births cohorts of childless men and women on the one side and

fathers and mothers with more than three children on the other side is very similar.

The two-child family dominates Russian society in all birth cohorts and the number of

individuals with more than three biological children is constantly declining from the

oldest to the youngest cohorts, whereas the proportion of one-child families is

15

8.3 7.8 7.1 6.8 5.9 6.4 7.8 11.7 13.8

19.228.6 26.6 28.3 26.2 29.4 24.6

36.8 38.9

46.242.2 49.1 49.2 54.6 49.1 53.1

39.137.6

17.4 11.613.2 10.6 11.3 11.0 11.6 10.9 8.58.8 9.8

1.6 1.32.84.12.05.24.0

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1926-30 1931-35 1936-40 1941-45 1946-50 1951-55 1956-60 1961-65 1966-70Birth cohort

0 1 2 3 3+

Figure 5: Men – Parity-specific distributions (cohorts 1923 to 1970) Source: Russian GGS (2004) – own estimations

10.9 7.8 7.2 7.1 6.2 3.3 5.4 5.1 8.6

29.2 31.2 33.8 29.9 28.4 30.5 24.1 30.7

43.4

39.6 43.3 43.0 47.4 48.5 48.5 51.950.4

38.9

12.5 10.9 12.4 11.8 12.7 12.4 14.9 11.4 8.07.8 6.8 5.31.02.43.83.6 3.7 4.3

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1926-30 1931-35 1936-40 1941-45 1946-50 1951-55 1956-60 1961-65 1966-70Birth cohort

0 1 2 3 3+

Figure 6: Women - Parity specific distributions (cohorts 1923 to 1970)

Source: Russian GGS (2004) – own estimations

-3.9%

1.1% 0.6% 0.0%1.1% 1.2%

3.4%5.0%

2.5%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

WOMEN 1926-30 1931-35 1936-40 1941-45 1946-50 1951-55 1956-60 1961-65 1966-70

MEN 1924-28 1926-33 1934-38 1939-43 1944-48 1949-53 1954-58 1959-63 1964-68Birth cohort

Chi

ldle

ssne

s (in

per

cent

)

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

Sex

diff

eren

ce (

in p

erce

nt)*

MEN WOMEN Sex difference

Figure 4: Reported childlessness, at interview (cohorts 1923 to 1987) and occurring sex differences Source: Russian GGS (2004) – own estimations

NOTE: * positive values = men reporting a higher level of childlessness negative values = women reporting a higher level of childlessness

16

increasing. There is no evidence for a polarization effect that more males than females

have three or more biological children.

In the next section, sex-specific age characteristics are examined. In Figure 7 the

median age at first birth, estimated from the Russian GSS, and the sex-specific

differences for different calendar years (five-year groups) are presented.

Throughout the 1950s and up to the mid 1960s, the age at first birth was relatively

stable for both sexes (men: app. 25; women: app. 23). At the end of the 1960s, it

significantly declined (2 years). Afterwards, from 1970 to the end of the 1980s, it

entered again a stable phase (men: app. 23; women: app. 21). The age patterns at the

end of the 1940s were different. During this time the first birth took place earlier in

life (women: 21.3; men: 21.6) and the age difference between men and women was

much smaller compared to the following periods. The age patterns in the 1990s were

also different. Between 1992 and 1999, the age difference between the sexes

increased. This was mainly due to an increased age among Russian men at the first

birth of their children, whereas a female’s age at first childbirth stayed stable. In the

new millennium, the age gap has decreased again. Generally, the sex-specific age

difference over all periods is very stable. It ranges around two years i.e. Russian men

are usually two years older than women when becoming a parent.

Whereas the small age differences and the low age at childbirth of males after WWII

could be mainly explained by an unbalanced sex ratio, the explanation of the

occurring differences in the 1990s most probably needs a more detailed analysis of

factors on the individual, as well as societal, level.

The age differences between Russian males and females, from the cohort perspective,

are displayed in Figure 8. They are similar to the previous results. Men’s median age

at fist birth stayed very stable over all birth cohorts (1920s, 1930s: app. 26; 1950s,

1960s, 1970s: app. 24) but it declined two years in the cohorts of the 1940s.

Oppositely,, women’s age at first birth constantly declined, with the exception of in

the 1940s, where it slightly increased. The average age distance between the sexes

over the birth cohorts from 1936 to 1970 was 2.14 years, i.e. on average men were

2.14 years older than their female counterparts. However, in the oldest cohort group

men were younger than women at their transition to parenthood, due to the imbalance

in the partner market after WWII. The increase of the age gap between Russian males

and females in the birth cohorts around 1940 is explained by the large male birth

cohorts of the years around 1940.

17

1.82.3

1.52.4

2.01.5

2.1 1.82.5 2.5 2.2

21.6

24.725.4 24.9

25.8

23.8 23.724.2 24.1 23.7

24.4

21.3

22.9 23.1 23.4 23.3

21.9 22.2 22.1 22.3

21.221.9

22.7

24.9

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000Calendar year

age

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Sex

diff

eren

ce (

in y

ears

)

Sex difference MEN WOMEN

Figure 7: Median age at first birth (period 1946 to 2004)

Sources: Russian GGS – own estimations

26.2 25.8 26.0 25.7

24.2 24.624.0 24.3

23.8

24.724.2

23.524.0

22.8 22.721.8 21.7

21.2

2.51.7

2.22.7 2.7

1.71.5 1.4 1.916

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

1926-30 1931-35 1936-40 1941-45 1946-50 1951-55 1956-60 1961-65 1966-70Birth cohort

Age

at f

irst b

irth

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Sex

diff

eren

ce (

in y

ears

)

MEN WOMEN Sex difference

Figure 8: Median age at first birth (cohorts 1926 to 1970) – K-M-estimates Source: Russian GGS (2004) – own estimations

Birth Age at 1st birth Age at last birth Interval

cohort 10th percentile 90th percentile length

MEN WOMEN MEN WOMEN MEN WOMEN

1926-30 22.17 20.83 40.92 41.67 18.75 20.83

1931-35 23.42 20.25 44.25 39.50 20.83 19.25

1936-40 22.58 19.83 44.67 38.33 22.08 18.50

1941-45 22.67 20.00 41.92 41.67 19.25 21.67

1946-50 21.25 19.42 41.42 37.58 20.17 18.17

1951-55 21.75 19.25 40.67 36.67 18.92 17.42

1956-60 21.42 19.50 40.50 35.50 19.08 16.00

1961-65 21.50 19.17 43.83 35.58 22.33 16.42

1966-70 21.25 18.67 … … … … Table 1: Age at first birth 10th percentile, 90th percentile age at last childbirth – KM estimates (cohorts 1923

to 1970); Source: Russian GGS (2004) – own estimations

18

When entering the partner market, they were confronted with the extremely small

female generations of the WWII years (1943 and 1944) (Scherbov and Van Vianen

2004).

In Table 1, the 10th percentile of the age at first birth, the 90th percentile of the age at

last birth and the distance between both estimates are displayed. It shows that Russian

men are reproducing at older ages and for a longer period of time than are females,

with the exception of the two oldest cohort groups and the birth cohorts around 1945.

Again, these exceptions are related to the described effects of WWII. Similar to the

age at first birth, the upper age border decreased over the cohorts for both sexes. For

90 percent of female and male respondents from the birth cohorts between 1926 and

1965, the age at last birth did not exceed 45 years.

5.2. Sex differences in parity-specific transition models

In Figure 9, Kaplan-Meier survival functions for the transition to the first birth are

presented. In order to follow the logic of the previously shown aggregated measures, I

estimated separate graphs for the cohorts between 1936 and 1970. Previous cohorts

are not introduced in the models in order to avoid biases due to the effects of WWII.

First, the presented findings concerning the sex specific age differences are

confirmed. In general, men experience their transition to the first child significantly

later than do women. Even if the age difference at first birth varies between the

different cohorts, the average difference between the sexes is approximately two years

(cohorts up to 1970). Whereas women start their main transition phase around the age

of 19 and finish this phase at 28, Russian men become fathers for the first time

between the ages of 21 and 30. Furthermore, the distribution of childless men and

women varies. The average variance over the cohorts between 1936 and 1970 is 2.2

percent (females: 5.6 percent; males 7.8 percent). Similar to the results from the

aggregated measures, the survival functions show reliable estimates for the

generations up to 1970, even if men tend to report biological children significantly

less often.

In Figure 10, the survival curves for the transitions to the second birth are presented.

No remarkable sex-specific differences occur. Sixty-nine percent of all Russian one-

child fathers and 68 percent of all Russian one-child mothers from the birth cohorts

between 1936 and 1970 experience a second birth.

19

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

surv

ival

12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48

age of the respondent

MENWOMEN

cohorts 1936 to 1970Transition to the 1st child

Figure 9: Transition to the first child – K-M-estimates

Source: Russian GGS (2004) – own estimations

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

surv

ival

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

age the first child

MENWOMEN

cohorts 1936 to 1970Transition to the 2nd child

Figure 10: Transition to the second child – K-M-estimates

Source: Russian GGS (2004) – own estimations

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

surv

ival

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

age the second child

MENWOMEN

cohorts 1936 to 1970Transition to the 3rd child

Figure 11: Transition to the third child – K-M-estimates

Source: Russian GGS (2004) – own estimations

Wilcoxon-Test: chi2 = 866.42 p <= 0.001; Log-Rank-Test: chi2 = 465.84 p <= 0.001

20

Thus, only one third of Russian one-child parents have no subsequent births. The

timing patterns relative to the subsequent births are the same for the sexes. Eight years

after the first birth, the main transition phase to the second birth is finished and 60

percent ended up having a second child.

The transition to the third birth (Figure 11) also shows similar sex-specific patterns.

Seven years after the previous birth, the main transition phase to the third child is

finished. This applies to Russian women as well as to Russian men. In comparison to

the second birth, only a minority of all two-child parents have more children. Not

even one third of all two-child parents experience subsequent births. This illustrates

the strong dominance of the two-child family in Russia. Figure 11 also shows that

more two-child mothers tend to have a third child in comparison to their male

counterparts. In the birth cohorts between 1936 and 1970, the sex-specific difference

is 1.5 percent (females: 22.9 %; males: 21.4 %).

The last two survival functions show that Russian men and women have very similar

fertility timing patterns. Once they have started their reproductive career, nearly no

differences occur. Moreover, there is no evidence for a male parity polarization

pattern.

In Figure 12, the baseline intensities for Russian men and women and their transition

to the first child are presented. The process time is the age of the respondent, starting

from age 12. The process ends at first birth and cases are censored at time of

interview. The male transition phase starts approximately two years later compared to

the female one. The risk of fist birth peaks for women between ages 20 and 24,

whereas for men it is the highest between 22 and 28. Since the risk of a first birth

declines afterwards to a value around zero at the age of 48 for males as well as for

females, there is no evidence that men have remarkably higher risks of a first birth at

older ages.

Figure 13 shows the baseline intensity of the transition to the second birth by sex.

The process time is the age of the first child, ending at the second birth or at time of

interview for censored cases. Only small sex-specific differences occur. It confirms

that the fertility timing pattern of the second birth is nearly the same for Russian men

and Russian women. The highest risk for a second birth is observable between 1 and 6

years after the first birth and it peaks when the first child reaches age 5. Afterwards,

the risk constantly declines and reaches a level around zero 18 years after the previous

birth.

21

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48age of the respondent

rela

tive

risk

MEN WOMEN

Figure 12: Transition to the first child – baseline intensities (cohorts 1936 to 1970), controlled for: area of Residence: Relative to men age 24 Source: own estimations – Russian GGS (2004)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

age of the 1st child

rela

tive

risk

MEN WOMEN

Figure 13: Transition to the second child – baseline intensities (cohorts 1936 to 1970), controlled for: area of residence: Relative to men’s 1st child age 3 Source: own estimations – Russian GGS (2004):

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

age of the 2nd child

rela

tive

risk

MEN WOMEN

Figure 14: Transition to the third child – baseline intensities (cohorts 1936 to 1970), controlled for: area of residence: Relative to men’s 2nd child age 3 Source: own estimations – Russian GGS (2004)

22

This applies to women as well as to men. Consequently, the time frame when family

extension usually occurs is more or less similar for both sexes.

The baseline function of the transition to the third birth is presented in Figure 14. The

age of the second child is used as the process time, which ends at the birth of the third

child or at time of interview for censored cases. Again, the differences between the

sexes are only minor. Timing pattern as well as the length of the time frame when a

third birth most probably occurs is nearly the same for Russian men and women. The

risk of a third birth peaks shortly (two to three years) after the previous birth and

declines fast. This pattern is more pronounced for females then for males. However,

18 years after the birth of the second child, the propensity for a subsequent birth is

close to zero for the sexes.

6. Discussion

The purpose of this paper was to evaluate the differences between Russian male and

female fertility behavior in respect to four hypotheses. Although sex-specific

differences are often viewed as problematic when analyzing male fertility, it was

shown that these differences are much weaker than other demographic studies

suggested. Data of the Russian GGS (2004) were used to conduct aggregated fertility

measures, survival functions and hazard regression models for men and women.

1. “fertile time span” hypothesis: Neither the evaluation of the aggregate statistics,

nor the transition to the first, the second and the third birth allude to the assumption

that Russian men have a much longer reproductive life span in comparison to their

female counterparts, even if men have the biological ability to become fathers at older

ages. Consequently, the age in which the fertility of Russian males is completed is not

different from women’s age. It is reasonable to assume that both sexes finished their

reproductive career at age 49 or even earlier (see Table 1).

This pattern should be related to two issues. First, it was shown that male fertility

pattern in Russia, most of the time, was characterized by a start of the birth career at

early ages, short birth intervals as well as an early finish. Secondly, the strong

dominance of the two-child family in Russia further adds to the explanation. Russian

fertility behavior may be described with four words “Everybody, Early, Few and

Quickly.” (Avdeev 2001: 9)

23

These patterns can be explained by very stable country-specific family formation

characteristics and homogenous reproductive behavior: 1. Relatively early marriage

and the first birth are closely connected. 2. The desirable number of children has been

and still is stable at a level around two in the last 60 years. 3. The family formation

(1st child) is quickly completed, with short spacing between marriage and first birth

and between the subsequent births (Zakharov 1997; Zakharov 1999). So far such

patterns have only been described for Russian females. However, they are similarly

applicable to men.

2. “Age gap” hypothesis: The estimation of the age at first birth (by period and birth

cohort), the survival functions and the corresponding baseline intensities confirm the

hypothesis that Russian men start their fertility career two years later than do Russian

females. This also applies to their first union formation (Scherbov and Van Vianen

2001, 2004). Moreover, no sex-specific timing differences in the transition to the

second and third birth occur. Once Russian males and females have started their

family formation, the family extension follows nearly the same timing pattern relative

to the previous birth.

The stable age gap can be explained by different factors. 1. Males become sexually

mature approximately two years later compared to their female counterparts. 2.

According to marriage market theories, relatively stable ages at first birth and

“historical perpetuation” generate a stable age distance within the range of two to

three years. This age gap is only widened or closed if high barriers (economic or

social) to enter a (marital) partnership are imposed on men or women, e.g. payment of

high bride money or dowry; the achievement of a certain social position etc. Even if

the presented models did not account for such factors, the results suggest that these

barriers are small in Russia. 3. From the Russian cohorts of WWII it is known that in

times of crisis and demographical change, the age gap is not fixed (Avdeev and

Monnier 1999). I focused on the birth cohorts between 1940 and 1970. Thus,

respondents who entered the partner market in a phase of relatively stable

demographic, political and economic conditions were included. The sex-specific age

gap was stable for around two years.

3. “Parity polarization” hypothesis: The presented findings did not support the

hypothesis that men have a greater diversity concerning their number of children born

compared to women. I did not find a polarization between men with no or few

children and males with a relatively large progeny size. Even if a higher level of

24

reported childlessness among Russian males was observed, a concentration in higher

parties was absent.

Socially imposed monogamy, early and fast family formation and a relatively small

number of biological children (like in the majority of European societies) are the main

reasons that no polarization effect is observable in Russia. Very young ages at

marriage and the prevalence of the two-child family in Russia confirm this argument.

It is a question to be addressed in following studies as to whether polarization patterns

occur between different societal groups i.e. ethnic, religious, educational, employment

status etc.

4. “No underreporting” hypothesis: To clarify whether Russian men underreport their

fertility outcomes, or to what extent the male Russian data of the GGS are reliable,

was one of the most important aims in this study. Only minor differences between the

number of biological children reported by males and females were expected, since the

questionnaire setup should weaken biases of intentional and unintentional

misreporting (Duberstein Lindberg et al. 1998a). Nevertheless, the estimations of the

TFR, the level of childlessness, the CFR and the various parity-specific transition

models allude to the assumption that also in the Russian GGS men tend to report

fewer biological children compared to their female counterparts. Russian respondents

report approximately two per cent fewer children than do females. The underreporting

bias is small compared to previously conducted studies (Goldscheider and Kaufman

1996; Mott and Gryn 2001; Rendall et al. 1999; Toulemon 2001). This means that if

the men and women should have the same completed fertility when averaging over a

sufficient time span, the Russian GGS is relatively weakly biased due to male

misreporting behavior. Consequently, it provides reliable estimates of male fertility

pattern. This enables future research on male fertility with this dataset.

The parity-specific transitions are not affected by misreporting to the same extent. The

transition to the first birth seems to be especially biased. The few studies on male

misreporting behavior point out its association with births out of wedlock, with non-

residential children and with births early in the life course (Bledsoe, Lerner, and

Guyer 2000; Cherlin and Griffith 1998; Rendall et al. 1999). In Russia, a first birth

usually occurs at young ages. Consequently, male’s stronger pronounced

underreporting pattern at the transition to the first child is likely to be due to

(unintentional) misreports of young men who have a higher risk of non-marital births,

of children living apart and of partnerships (LATs - living apart together).

25

7. Acknowledgements

I am grateful for valuable comments and advice from Dirk Konietzka, Hill Kulu,

Gunnar Andersson, Jan Hoem and all team members of the group “Interdependencies

in the life course” at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock. I

am very thankful for language editing by Elizabeth Zach, too. Furthermore, I would

like to thank Maggie Kulik and all other friends and colleagues for their support.

26

8. References

1. Andersson, Gunnar. (2000). Focus on Population Subgroups - Men and Their Demographic

Behaviour. Generations and Gender Programme - Exploring the future research and data collection options. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, 83-85. New York Geneva: United Nations.

2. Avdeev, Alexandre, and Alain Monnier. (1999). La Nuptialite Russe Depuis La Guerre: Facteurs Structurel et de Comportement. Congres Europeen De La Population, La Haye Session B-2: "Household and Families in Europe: Case Studies": 1-19.

3. Avdeev, Alexandre (2001). The extend of the fertility decline in Russia: is the one-child family here to stay ?. Paper presented at the IUSSP Seminar on “International Perspectives on Low Fertility: trends, theories and policies. Tokyo: March 21-23.

4. Bachrach, Christine, and Freya Sonenstein. (1998). Report of the Working Group on Male Fertility and Family Formation. Nurturing Fatherhood: Improving Data and Research on Male Fertility, Family Formation and Fatherhood. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 1-36. Washington D.C.: Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics.

5. Bachrach, Christine A., Jeffery Evans, S. A. Ellison, and Kathy Shepherd Stolley. (1992). What price do we pay for single sex fertility surveys? PAA.

6. Bernhardt, Eva M., and Frances K. Goldscheider. (2001). Men, Resources, and family living: The determinants of union and parental status in the United States and Sweden. Journal of Marriage and Family 63: 793-803.

7. Billari, Francesco C., and Hans-Peter Kohler. (2002). Patterns of Lowest-Low Fertility in Europe. Working Paper at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research Rostock 4.

8. Bledsoe, Caroline, Susana Lerner, and Jane I. Guyer. (2000). Fertility and the Male Life-Cycle in the Era of Fertility Decline. New York: Oxford University Press.

9. Brouard, N. (1977). Evolution de la Fecondite Masculine Depuis le Debut du Siecle. Population 32, no. 6: 1123-45.

10. Callister, Paul. (1999). No Job, No Wife? - Fathers, Paid Work and Changes in Living Arrangements in New Zealand. Perspectives on Fathering II. Stuart Birks, and Paul Callister, 116-32. Palmerston North: Massey University - Centre for Public Policy Evaluation.

11. Cherlin, Andrew, and Jeanne Griffith. (1998). Methodological Issues in Improving Data on Fathers. Nurturing Fatherhood: Improving Data and Research on Male Fertility, Family Formation and Fatherhood. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 1-27. Washington D.C.: Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics.

12. Coleman, David A. (2000). Male Fertility Trends in Industrial Countries: Theories in Search of Some Evidence. Fertility and the Male Life-Cycle in the Era of Fertility Decline. Caroline Bledsoe, Susana Lerner, and Jane I. Guyer, 29-60. New York: Oxford University Press.

13. Driscoll, Anne, Kristin Moore, William Mosher, Martin O'Connell, and Stephanie Ventura. (1998). Indicators of Male Fertility, Family Formation and Sexual Behavior. NURTURING FATHERHOOD: Improving Data and Research on Male Fertility, Family Formation, and Fatherhood. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 1-13. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics.

27

14. Duberstein Lindberg, Laura, Freya Lund Sonenstein, Gladys Martinez, and John Marcotte. (1998a). Completeness of Young Fathers' Reports of Fertility. Journal of Economic and Social Measurement 24: 15-23.

15. Duberstein Lindberg, Laura, Constance Nathanson , Joseph Pleck, and Kenneth Wolpin. (1998b). Integrating Theoretical Perspectives on Gender, Union Formation and Fertility. NURTURING FATHERHOOD: Improving Data and Research on Male Fertility, Family Formation, and Fatherhood. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 1-14. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics.

16. Goldscheider, Frances K., and Gayle Kaufman. (1996). Fertility and Commitment: Bringing Men Back In. Population and Development Review 22: 87-99.

17. Greene, Margret E., and Ann E. Biddlecom. (2000). Absent and problematic men: Demographic accounts of male reproductive roles. Population and Development Review 26: 81-115.

18. Hogan, Dennis P., and Frances Goldscheider. (2000). Men's flight from children in the US? A historical perspective. PAA.

19. Independent Institute for Social Policy. (2004). Generation and Gender Survey - Field Work in Russia - Technical Report of the Main Study. Moscow: Independent Institute for Social Policy.

20. Kalmijn, Matthijs, and Ruud Luijkx. (2005). Has the reciprocal relationship between employment and marriage changed for men? An analysis of the life histories of men born in the Netherlands between 1930 and 1970. Populations Studies 59, no. 2: 211-31.

21. Klein, Thomas. (1995). Heiratsmarkt und "Marriage Squeeze" - Analysen zur Veränderung von Heiratsgelegenheiten in der Bundesrepublik. Familie Im Brennpunkt Von Wissenschaft Und Forschung: 357-67.

22. Kreyenfeld, Michaela. (2002). Time-squeeze, partner effect or selfselection? An investigation into the positive effect of women's education on second birth risks in West Germany. Demographic Research 7: 16-41.

23. Lesthaeghe, R. and G. Moors (2000). Recent trends in fertility and household formation in the industrialized world. Review of Population and Social Policy 9: 1-49.

24. Mott, Fank L., and Thomas A. Gryn. (2001). Evaluating male fertility data: Who reports consistently and what are the analytical implications. PAA.

25. Paget, W. J. , and I. M. Timaeus. (1994). A Relational Gompertz Model of Male Fertility Development and Assessment. Population Studies 48, no. 2: 333-40.

26. Ravanera, Zenaida R., and Fernando Rajulton. (2003). Fertility of Canadian Men: Levels, Trends, Correlates. PAA.

27. Rendall, Michael S., Lynda Clarke, H. Elizabeth Peters, Nalini Ranjit, and Georgia Verropoulou. (1999). Incomplete reporting of men's fertility in the United States and Britain: A research note. Demography 36, no. 1: 135-44.

28. Scherbov, Sergei, and Harrie Van Vianen. (2001). Marriage and Fertility in Russia of Women Born between 1900 and 1960: A Cohort Analysis. European Journal of Population 17: 281-94.

29. Scherbov, Sergei, and Harrie Van Vianen. (2004). Marriage in Russia. A reconstruction. Demographic Research 10: 28-60.

28

30. Shryock, Henry S., and Jacob S. Siegel. (1976). The Methods and Materials of Demography. San Diego: Academic Press.

31. Sorensen, Elaine. (1998). Nonresident Fathers: What We Know and What's Left to Learn? NURTURING FATHERHOOD: Improving Data and Research on Male Fertility, Family Formation, and Fatherhood. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 1-9. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics.

32. Toulemon, Laurent. (2001). Men's fertility and family size as compared to women's. XXIVth IUSSP General Population Conference Session S-13.

33. van de Kaa, Dirk. (1987). Europe's second demographic transition. Population Bullentin 42.

34. Watkins, Susan Cotts. (1993). If all we knew about women was what we read in Demography, what would we know? Demography 30, no. 3: 551-77.

35. Zakharov, Sergei V. (1997). Fertility Trends in Russia and the European new Independent States: Crisis or Turning Point. United Nations. Population Division. Expert Group Meeting on Below-Replacement Fertility: 271-90.

36. ———. (1999). Unlike their Parents, the Russian Youth are less eager to form Families at young Ages: Basic Outcomes from the analyses of Period and Cohort Parity-specific fertility tables, 1979-1997. Second Workshop on Lowest Low Fertility, MPIDR Rostock.

29

7. Appendix

Parity MEN WOMEN TOTAL

# % # % # %

0 260 8.6 324 6.3 584 7.2

1 890 29.5 1583 30.8 2473 30.3

2 1412 46.9 2405 46.8 3817 46.8

3 343 11.4 625 12.2 968 11.9

3+ 107 4 205 4 312 4

4 81 2.7 131 2.6 212 2.6

5 16 0.5 37 0.7 53 0.7

6 3 0.1 23 0.4 26 0.3

7 3 0.1 10 0.2 13 0.2

8 4 0.1 1 0.0 5 0.1

9 1 0.0 2 0.0 3 0.0

Total 3013 100.0 5141 100.0 8154 100.0

Table 2: Distribution of respondents by sex and number of biological children (birth cohorts 1926 to 1970) – absolute weighted numbers and percent

MEN WOMEN TOTAL Birth cohort # % # % # %

1926-30 176 6.1 312 6.3 488 6.2

1931-35 182 6.3 315 6.3 497 6.3

1936-40 271 9.3 562 11.3 834 10.6

1941-45 168 5.8 321 6.5 490 6.2

1946-50 386 13.3 602 12.1 988 12.5

1951-55 416 14.3 728 14.7 1144 14.5

1956-60 491 16.9 897 18.1 1389 17.6

1961-65 424 14.6 700 14.1 1124 14.3

1966-70 395 13.6 526 10.6 920 11.7

Total 2909 100 4963 100.0 7874 100.0

Table 3: Distribution of respondents by sex and 5-year birth cohort groups (cohorts 1926 to 1970) – absolute weighted numbers and percent

MEN Birth cohort # %

1924-28 119 4.5

1929-33 176 6.6

1934-38 219 8.2

1939-43 214 8.1

1944-48 259 9.7

1949-53 378 14.2

1954-58 468 17.6

1959-63 454 17.1

1964-68 370 13.9

Total 2658 100

Table 4: Distribution of male respondents by “shifted” 5-year birth cohort groups (cohorts 1924 to

1968) – absolute weighted numbers and percent

30

1st Birth Time at risk Rate Events Respondents

Male 738127.5 0.00435 2274 4398

Female 996216.3 0.00575 3988 6804

Total 1734343.8 0.00516 6262 11202

2nd birth

Male 373557.4 0.00506 1436 3166

Female 746551.4 0.00450 2534 5639

Total 1120108.8 0.00469 3970 8805

3rd birth

Male 712909.0 0.00057 305 1870

Female 1231079.5 0.00061 594 3308

Total 1943988.5 0.00060 899 5178 Table 5: Exposures and occurrences by sex for the transitions (birth cohorts 1936 to 1970) to first, second and third birth